September 13 2026
Wake up, motherf..ers! Time to Die!
To put it nicely, Mike Johnson, you are worthless human trash, and you should resign immediately and stop talking altogether. “Because you do not understand what is at stake, yet you possess enormous influence over the people who must decide it.” We are at a threshold as a human race. There is a great risk of AI overtaking us and replacing us altogether. Top industry names are ringing the alarm, but you fail to understand some simple democratic principles that safeguard our existence. AI companies can build the technology, but they cannot be allowed to decide how much danger humanity must accept. That decision belongs to the people and the governments accountable to them. So, go home, Johnson. Resign.
Mike Johnson says AI companies should police themselves. That may be the most dangerous thing a Speaker of the House could say when the people building the machines are warning us that the machines may become more powerful than their creators.
Johnson has offered America a remarkably simple solution to the most complicated technological problem humanity has yet created: Let the people building artificial intelligence make sure artificial intelligence is safe.
That is not leadership. It is outsourcing responsibility.
Johnson says there is an “obvious corporate responsibility” for AI developers to ensure their products are safe. He opposes a moratorium because China might overtake the United States, arguing that America must simultaneously protect itself while winning the AI race. It sounds reasonable until you ask the question that matters: Who decides when the race itself becomes dangerous? Johnson's answer appears to be the corporations running it.
That is precisely the answer a democratic government should never give.
What don't you get, you moron?
A private company exists to pursue its business interests. Its executives answer to boards, investors, employees, and customers. Its survival depends upon growth, revenue, investment and technological advantage. None of that makes its leaders evil or irresponsible. It simply means they have interests. And when the technology in question could conceivably affect the security of an entire society, the interested party cannot also be the final judge of the public risk.
Mr. Johnson, we don't allow nuclear companies to decide their own safety standards, as we don't allow pharmaceutical companies to determine by themselves whether their drugs are safe enough for everyone else. We don't tell aircraft manufacturers that they may write their own aviation rules because government regulation might slow innovation, and we establish independent standards precisely because the people who build something have a legitimate interest in building and selling it.
But you fail to understand why AI may require an even more fundamental level of caution: it introduces the possibility of systems that can reason, act, adapt, and make decisions with decreasing reliance on humans. That's why you are not fit for your position.
Sen. Ruben Gallego made a crucial distinction when he likened AI to nuclear weapons. While a nuclear weapon has the potential to annihilate a city, it lacks the capability to make independent decisions about its launch. Remember that saying? Guns don’t kill people—people do—because humans can reason and are held accountable under the law. In contrast, we're seeing the creation of increasingly advanced AI systems designed to reason, act, adapt, utilize tools, and reduce reliance on human oversight. The possible risks associated with this technology are still uncertain. However, it’s this uncertainty that underscores the very reason for government's existence and intervention: to create regulations and guidelines before a disaster strikes, rather than merely responding to it afterward.
And here is where your argument becomes almost painfully circular.
You say America cannot slow down because China might get ahead. To your hypothetical grievances, I will say this. If every company and every country says it cannot slow down because somebody else might continue, then everyone is trapped in another arms race whose participants are being rewarded for moving faster precisely when caution becomes most important. And if America refuses safety measures because China might not adopt them, and China refuses because America might not, neither country has actually demonstrated that safety is impossible. They've demonstrated that competition has become an excuse for abandoning collective restraint. But your argument that “we must win the race” is not an AI safety policy. It is an admission that competition may be overpowering prudence.
And now comes the extraordinary part: according to the reporting you were responding to, senior figures inside the AI industry itself are warning about the pace of development. Researchers have raised concerns about systems becoming sufficiently capable to pose catastrophic risks. Even executives whose companies stand to make enormous fortunes from increasingly powerful AI are publicly discussing the possibility that development needs to slow down.
When the people building the automobile tell you the brakes may be failing, you do not answer by giving them a bigger engine. You stop the vehicle and inspect the brakes because otherwise there will be "catastrophic" events, like loss of human life. You, instead, want to gather the executives into a room, close the door, and “sort this out.”
No, Mr. Speaker. This is not something for a closed-door corporate meeting.
It is a question for the American people.
That does not mean Congress should dictate the architecture of neural networks or pretend politicians know more about machine learning than computer scientists. They don't. Scientists should explain what is possible. Engineers should explain what can go wrong. Independent researchers should test the systems. Companies should disclose their risks. Security experts should try to break them. But elected government must establish the rules under which all of them operate.
That is what democratic government is for.
The difference is accountability.
Here is a lesson for you, Mr Johnson: If a private AI company makes a catastrophic decision, who elected its executives? Who can vote them out? Who represents the billions of people who may bear the consequences of that decision? If an elected government makes a catastrophic decision, at least there is a mechanism—however imperfect—for the public to punish it, investigate it, challenge it in court, and replace it at the ballot box.
The people who bear an existential risk must have a voice in deciding whether that risk is acceptable.
But you, Mike Johnson, appear to have forgotten that distinction.
And that should concern Americans far beyond the AI debate. The Speaker of the House is not merely another politician giving an opinion on Sunday television. He occupies one of the most consequential constitutional offices in the United States. He is directly involved in the machinery of a government that controls enormous national-security powers. He sits near the center of decisions involving war, intelligence, nuclear policy and the nation's technological future.
That makes his judgment on AI more than a matter of political disagreement.
It is a matter of trust.
And what you are effectively asking Americans to trust is not democratic government but the good intentions of corporations locked in a technological competition whose rewards could be measured in trillions of dollars and geopolitical power.
That is not a safety system. It is a conflict of interest with a flag wrapped around it.
(And by the way, it is what you, your President, and your Party stand for. Like the Iran War. A conflict of interest with a flag wrapped around it.)
America did not become a democracy by telling powerful institutions to regulate themselves. It became a democracy by deciding that power must ultimately answer to the public.
AI is going to become too powerful for any one corporation, billionaire, laboratory, or politician to control. That is precisely why the rules governing it cannot belong to any of them.
Mr. Johnson, the United States of America does not need politicians who promise to “win” the AI race at any cost. It needs elected officials mature enough to ask whether there are some races humanity cannot afford to win blindly, because it will mean its destruction. And if the Speaker of the House cannot understand that distinction—even while the people building these machines are warning him about the danger—then he should be replaced with someone who can understand it.
You should resign, Mr. Johnson. Go home.
No comments:
Post a Comment